New 3d TVs hitting the market

[Nasir]

New 3D LED TV offerings from major players have hit the shelves here in Portugal.

Samsung has a few SMART models on sale with little or no premium to pay for 3D. However the models still continue with the reflective screen.

Lots of rumors regarding LG, but nothing new that I can report on. A lot of hype on their passive 3D though.

Apparently it pays to rant and rave about MATTE screens, as somebody at SONY must have their ears open to this issue: their EX720 3D TV is a matte screen version ready to do battle with the new Philips PFL 8505 edge lit LED 3D.

The Philips TV is apparently aimed at the German and/or Austrian market as almost all the Googled results are in German, but their 46in version is available here in Portugal together with a free 26in LED TV!!

Please post more info to this tread as most of us are still open to suggestions....

[Smokey]

If you are planning to buy a 3D TV, I would definitly stay away from edge lit LED LCDs. They are notorious for edge bleedng and flashing.

[Swish]

It seems like such a fad to me, and nothing more. Sitting around in your house with funny glasses on to watch a 3D movie doesn't appeal to me one iota. I would also submit that there will be very few movies available in 3D and that that whole thing falls apart within a year or two.

[Woochifer]

It seems like such a fad to me, and nothing more. Sitting around in your house with funny glasses on to watch a 3D movie doesn't appeal to me one iota. I would also submit that there will be very few movies available in 3D and that that whole thing falls apart within a year or two.

How can it be a fad when it's built into an existing HD video standard? The 3D spec is basically a metadata-based add-on to the existing MPEG-4 AVC standard (the same one that underpins Blu-ray and newer cable/satellite receivers).

How can 3D "fall apart" when it's well on its way to becoming standard issue on the majority of new HDTVs, Blu-ray players, and cable/satellite receivers? All of Directv's MPEG-4 HD receivers were updated for 3D service last summer, and the system software for the PS3 (which make up about half of all Blu-ray players) was enabled for 3D last fall.

The hardware is rapidly moving to 3D whether you want it to or not. It's a simple function of the updated MPEG-4 spec making its way into the latest video processing chips, and those processors migrating their way into new devices. Within your two year timeline, it's actually more likely that the majority of new HDTVs will simply come with the 3D function built in, since all of the new video processors will support it.

At the implementation end, the biggest R&D efforts in the TV industry right now are with glasses-free 3D TVs. But, whether the implementation uses shutter glasses, polarized glasses, or no glasses, they're all based on the same signal standard.

As far as content goes, in addition 3D theatrical releases, there are already four 3D broadcast channels on the air, including ESPN 3D. Development of new 3D HD cameras is well underway that will allow for one camera to be used simultaneously for 2D and 3D feeds. Once this happens, then the ramp up of 3D for live events will likely occur rapidly -- think sports, concerts, and event-based programs like American Idol.

Deployment of 3D TV is occurring much faster than it did with HDTV, and there's really nothing to impede that progress, given that it's a simple refinement of an existing standard. If you don't want to watch something in 3D, you don't have to. But, the new HDTV that you buy in a few years will likely have the 3D feature built in regardless.

[Woochifer]

New 3D LED TV offerings from major players have hit the shelves here in Portugal.

Samsung has a few SMART models on sale with little or no premium to pay for 3D. However the models still continue with the reflective screen.

Lots of rumors regarding LG, but nothing new that I can report on. A lot of hype on their passive 3D though.

Apparently it pays to rant and rave about MATTE screens, as somebody at SONY must have their ears open to this issue: their EX720 3D TV is a matte screen version ready to do battle with the new Philips PFL 8505 edge lit LED 3D.

The Philips TV is apparently aimed at the German and/or Austrian market as almost all the Googled results are in German, but their 46in version is available here in Portugal together with a free 26in LED TV!!

Please post more info to this tread as most of us are still open to suggestions....

Just as semantic thing, but there is no such thing as an LED TV per se. It's still a LCD TV, except that it uses LED backlighting rather than CCFL. And LED backlighting that use edge lighting (i.e., mounting the LEDs along the edge of the panel, rather than directly behind) have a lot of performance issues, since that design only serves to allow for a thinner panel.

As far as 3D goes, the price gap is indeed narrowing. Samsung deliberately went with a different rollout strategy by adding the 3D feature to its entry level TVs, rather than keeping it only in the high end models. It actually worked to some extent, because Samsung kept the same ~$300 price premium for the 3D feature as other manufacturers, except that the $300 3D markup got added to a much cheaper TV. Same markup, but a higher margin.

IMO, within the next few years, you'll gradually start seeing the 3D feature simply become standard on new HDTVs. At that point, I think the higher pricing will go towards glasses-free 3D TVs, which the TV manufacturers are feverishly developing right now.

As far as glossy vs matte, I think the market is actually moving towards glossy screens. We've already seen this happen in the computer monitor and laptop market, where buyers will typically opt for the glossy screen over a matte screen when given the option. Samsung started offering glossy screens on its LCD TVs a few years ago, and they've expanded it since then. The irony here is that plasma TVs have been using different anti-reflective/anti-glare coatings to try and reduce the reflections.

[Swish]

How can it be a fad when it's built into an existing HD video standard? The 3D spec is basically a metadata-based add-on to the existing MPEG-4 AVC standard (the same one that underpins Blu-ray and newer cable/satellite receivers).

How can 3D "fall apart" when it's well on its way to becoming standard issue on the majority of new HDTVs, Blu-ray players, and cable/satellite receivers? All of Directv's MPEG-4 HD receivers were updated for 3D service last summer, and the system software for the PS3 (which make up about half of all Blu-ray players) was enabled for 3D last fall.

The hardware is rapidly moving to 3D whether you want it to or not. It's a simple function of the updated MPEG-4 spec making its way into the latest video processing chips, and those processors migrating their way into new devices. Within your two year timeline, it's actually more likely that the majority of new HDTVs will simply come with the 3D function built in, since all of the new video processors will support it.

At the implementation end, the biggest R&D efforts in the TV industry right now are with glasses-free 3D TVs. But, whether the implementation uses shutter glasses, polarized glasses, or no glasses, they're all based on the same signal standard.

As far as content goes, in addition 3D theatrical releases, there are already four 3D broadcast channels on the air, including ESPN 3D. Development of new 3D HD cameras is well underway that will allow for one camera to be used simultaneously for 2D and 3D feeds. Once this happens, then the ramp up of 3D for live events will likely occur rapidly -- think sports, concerts, and event-based programs like American Idol.

Deployment of 3D TV is occurring much faster than it did with HDTV, and there's really nothing to impede that progress, given that it's a simple refinement of an existing standard. If you don't want to watch something in 3D, you don't have to. But, the new HDTV that you buy in a few years will likely have the 3D feature built in regardless.

...the discussion? I never worry about all that stuff. I just inject my opinion and hope everyone follows along quietly. :wink5:

[Woochifer]

...the discussion? I never worry about all that stuff. I just inject my opinion and hope everyone follows along quietly. :wink5:

D'oh!!!! My bad! :cool:

[pixelthis]

Wish I had a pic of an EDSEL to post on this thread...oh wait.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is a lot happening on the 3D front right now. Right now the industry is working on some sort of 3D standardization that allows all passive glasses to work with all passive 3D televisions and projection systems, and all active glasses work with all active 3D televisions and projector systems. So no more incompatibilities between glasses and televisions - you buy one pair, and it will work with all sets and projectors. This is a big step forward for 3D adoption.

The prices on 3DTV's are dropping, and the 3D feature is being found on more and more mid and lower priced televisions.

The worst problem with 3D at this point is ghosting, and it is totally attributed to the shutter glasses. I just received some glasses from a major company that advertise that the shutters sync so rapid and accurate, that they eliminate ghosting altogether. So far in my testing, they work as advertised. Movies that I had with very minor ghosting issues suddenly did not have it at all.

3D is not for everyone, but those of us that are into it, things are going to get pretty interesting and exciting going forward.

For anyone who thinks it is a passing fad, think again. 3D is here to stay this go around.

[Nasir]

I grant you this much, the picture on a reflective screen is more appealing than the one on the matte screen: the blacks are more glossy and so are the colors... but the reflection issue for me is more important and therefore I would still buy the matte TV screen.

Price wise there is only a small premium to pay for 3D, nothing like last year and the transmitter and glasses have come down in price for the Sony.

I donīt know if anybody else has noticed it, but I feel the need for a slightly bigger screen when viewing 3D material..... anybody else?

I too share the view that 3D capability will become standard for newer TVs soon and one hopes that they are compatible with 3D Bluray players from different manufacturers...

[Tarheel_]

The worst problem with 3D at this point is ghosting, and it is totally attributed to the shutter glasses. I just received some glasses from a major company that advertise that the shutters sync so rapid and accurate, that they eliminate ghosting altogether.

For anyone who thinks it is a passing fad, think again. 3D is here to stay this go around.

Sir TT, you missed the whole point... 3D will fail because you MUST wear glasses period. You know how many people poke into their eyes to remove/add contacts to spare themselves from glasses. It will fail and i'm an optimist.

[pixelthis]

Sir TT, you missed the whole point... 3D will fail because you MUST wear glasses period. You know how many people poke into their eyes to remove/add contacts to spare themselves from glasses. It will fail and i'm an optimist.

AH, YES, another voice of reason.
Peeps think I want 3D to "fail", and thats not the case. Its just that irresponsible use
still causes headaches, and most people are idiots, and will watch these sets forever.
And there is hardly any software. CAN'T wait till the class action lawsuit.
AMBULANCE chasers the free world over are salivating buckets over this one.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT, you missed the whole point... 3D will fail because you MUST wear glasses period. You know how many people poke into their eyes to remove/add contacts to spare themselves from glasses. It will fail and i'm an optimist.

Tarheel, sorry, but reality is not on your side. 3D televisions sales have picked up as of recently, and survey's point to more interest in 3D sets than last year. I wear glasses, as does my two closest friends who also own 3D sets. We find no problem with the glasses whether passive of active. YOU may have an issue with the glasses, and a certain minority may have issues, but most of us who actually own the sets and glasses have no issues with them. You cannot spare yourself from the glasses, and there is no need to remove or add contacts. The glasses are not made for replacing your prescription glasses.

And this also counters your opinion as well.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6205

This is one issue that I am glad you are wrong about.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I grant you this much, the picture on a reflective screen is more appealing than the one on the matte screen: the blacks are more glossy and so are the colors... but the reflection issue for me is more important and therefore I would still buy the matte TV screen.

Price wise there is only a small premium to pay for 3D, nothing like last year and the transmitter and glasses have come down in price for the Sony.

I donīt know if anybody else has noticed it, but I feel the need for a slightly bigger screen when viewing 3D material..... anybody else?

I too share the view that 3D capability will become standard for newer TVs soon and one hopes that they are compatible with 3D Bluray players from different manufacturers...

I do recommend a larger set for 3D because the image does scale down when you put on the glasses. What helps more than a larger set is sitting the proper distance from the set when viewing 3D. Larger screens do enhance the 3D effect better than smaller sets do.

[drseid]

The worst problem with 3D at this point is ghosting, and it is totally attributed to the shutter glasses. I just received some glasses from a major company that advertise that the shutters sync so rapid and accurate, that they eliminate ghosting altogether. So far in my testing, they work as advertised. Movies that I had with very minor ghosting issues suddenly did not have it at all.


Wow, I want to get me some of those. :-) On my Sony, I don't encounter major ghosting on many 3D Blu-rays, but when the Masters was on ESPN 3D (via Fios TV) I had so much ghosting going on, I had to switch back to watching it on the regular broadcast channel in 2D.

As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray. When implemented properly on certain material it can add to the movie watching experience significantly... it just needs to be selectively and properly implemented, IMO. If the studios can do this, then I think it has good staying power. If it is used just to ramp up movie ticket prices and adds little to films, then I think it will be diminished rather quickly both in the theaters and in the home. I guess we will see which it is.

---Dave

[pixelthis]

They need to keep it in theaters for now. Better to wait instead of launching it prematurely
and having it crash and burn, like all of the other times.
BUT THEY WON'T do that, because it would betray the effects of long term use,
and can't have that :1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, I want to get me some of those. :-) On my Sony, I don't encounter major ghosting on many 3D Blu-rays, but when the Masters was on ESPN 3D (via Fios TV) I had so much ghosting going on, I had to switch back to watching it on the regular broadcast channel in 2D.

Broadcast 3D is a tough bugger because they have to shoot what is there in real time. With 3D movies, every object is placed and shot with 3D in mind. In post, the 3D is monitored and corrected to eleminate ghosting.


As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray. When implemented properly on certain material it can add to the movie watching experience significantly... it just needs to be selectively and properly implemented, IMO. If the studios can do this, then I think it has good staying power. If it is used just to ramp up movie ticket prices and adds little to films, then I think it will be diminished rather quickly both in the theaters and in the home. I guess we will see which it is.

---Dave

The difference between Avatar and The Last Airbender is that Avatar was framed and shot with 3D camera's, and The Last Airbender was shot with digital 2D camera's with 3D added in post. Warner only allotted 2 weeks time for the post production 3D rendering, which is not nearly enough time to render quality 3D images. And you are right, it was so poorly done, it was hard on the eyes.

[E-Stat]

As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray.
Same with me. Avatar clearly set the bar with what you could do with 3D when properly executed. I've yet to see, however, another 3D movie with that level of realism. It seems most of the filmed versions (not animated) are post production efforts. Don't get me wrong - I'd really like to see more examples like Avatar. I see the situation like MC music. It's great when done well, but availability for the majority of musical releases is absent. I won't invest in a new technology when it benefits only 1-2% of my collection.

rw

[BadAssJazz]

Same with me. Avatar clearly set the bar with what you could do with 3D when properly executed. I've yet to see, however, another 3D movie with that level of realism. It seems most of the filmed versions (not animated) are post production efforts. Don't get me wrong - I'd really like to see more examples like Avatar. I see the situation like MC music. It's great when done well, but availability for the majority of musical releases is absent. I won't invest in a new technology when it benefits only 1-2% of my collection.

rw

That's pretty much my take on 3D as well. I doubt I'll ever upgrade just for 3D alone. Not unless I win the lottery and can buy or build my own IMAX 3D theater. Until then, I'll be happy with the normal limitations of my standard setup. It will make seeing certain movies at the theater that much more of an event.

[Woochifer]

That's pretty much my take on 3D as well. I doubt I'll ever upgrade just for 3D alone. Not unless I win the lottery and can buy or build my own IMAX 3D theater. Until then, I'll be happy with the normal limitations of my standard setup. It will make seeing certain movies at the theater that much more of an event.

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD. Right now, the market is hitting those early adopters that will upgrade their TV for the 3D capability. But, within the next few years, the 3D feature is just going to migrate its way into most, if not all, new TVs. In much the same that you can now barely find any non-HD TVs, the majority of TVs at that point will come with 3D whether you want it or not.

3D broadcasts on at least 4 channels have already gone live, and there's a lot of development underway on 3D HD cameras and production facilities. And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D. There's a lot of activity on the 3D front. The current crop of TVs is just seeding the market while everything else starts to come online.

[E-Stat]

And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D.
That is the biggest challenge to widespread use. As for me, I don't have any trouble wearing them. I don't get headaches or object to their use for limited periods of time. I doubt, however, that the public at large would ever accept the notion that you had to wear them all the time just to watch Oprah or the evening news.

rw

[pixelthis]

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD. Right now, the market is hitting those early adopters that will upgrade their TV for the 3D capability. But, within the next few years, the 3D feature is just going to migrate its way into most, if not all, new TVs. In much the same that you can now barely find any non-HD TVs, the majority of TVs at that point will come with 3D whether you want it or not.

3D broadcasts on at least 4 channels have already gone live, and there's a lot of development underway on 3D HD cameras and production facilities. And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D. There's a lot of activity on the 3D front. The current crop of TVs is just seeding the market while everything else starts to come online.

YOUR comparo is flawed.
HDTV was a massive change, dumb monitors have become computers, basically,
and are used like computers. Ghosting, moire, jaggies, all are gone.
SO IS A COMPANY that was making a box that got rid of ghosting, thats all it did.
Comparing HDTV to a gimmick like 3D is, frankly, ridiculous.
Theres' a form of 3D that doesn't require glasses, been used on computers, why not
use that?
3D is not "gradually" being adopted, it is actively being resisted, nobody wants
to pay such a premium for such an untested tech, especially one with a track record
of crashing and burning repeatedly.
HDTV is a revolution, 3D is a regression...back to the Saturday matinees with the blue/red glasses.:1:

[BadAssJazz]

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD.

Yes, but not by me. :)

I was all over the HD evolution/revolution in the same way that I was thrilled to ditch my 8-track for cassette tapes, and later cassette tapes for CD's. Nothing drives me like taking the next step to AV nirvana.

If by the next time that I upgrade my plasma I find that only the 3D variety are available, then so be it. I'll plop down my hard-earned ducats and think nothing of it. But right now 3D feels like more a sidestep than a leap forward to me. Maybe if I didn't have to wear the glasses to appreciate the effect I'd feel differently.

[Woochifer]

YOUR comparo is flawed.
HDTV was a massive change, dumb monitors have become computers, basically,
and are used like computers. Ghosting, moire, jaggies, all are gone.
SO IS A COMPANY that was making a box that got rid of ghosting, thats all it did.
Comparing HDTV to a gimmick like 3D is, frankly, ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous if you bother to look at how features migrate onto home theater equipment. A new spec gets adopted, that spec makes its way into the processing chips, and within a few years, it becomes standard issue. That's the path that 3D is taking.

The 3D MVC spec is already rapidly becoming a standard codec on the latest video processing chips. And this is a simple migration since it's nothing more than a revision to the existing MPEG-4 spec.

Just because YOU think 3D is a gimmick doesn't mean that manufacturers and broadcasters view it the same way. And right now, they are moving very quickly towards making 3D a standard feature in the very near future.


3D is not "gradually" being adopted, it is actively being resisted, nobody wants
to pay such a premium for such an untested tech, especially one with a track record
of crashing and burning repeatedly.

Again, how is it not being adopted when it is already making its way into the latest processing chips that HDTVs, Blu-ray players, satellite/cable receivers, and other HD devices use? This is no different than when DTS or any other updated audio codec gets released. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a standard feature. All PS3s and all Directv HD receivers have already been enabled for 3D, so tell me again how this is not being adopted?


HDTV is a revolution, 3D is a regression...back to the Saturday matinees with the blue/red glasses.:1:

Right, and who else but you thinks that 3D still uses blue/red glasses? :cool:

[Woochifer]

If by the next time that I upgrade my plasma I find that only the 3D variety are available, then so be it. I'll plop down my hard-earned ducats and think nothing of it. But right now 3D feels like more a sidestep than a leap forward to me. Maybe if I didn't have to wear the glasses to appreciate the effect I'd feel differently.

The 3D spec is pretty much set, and it builds on the existing MPEG-4 standard. The updated MPEG-4 profile has already made its way into many of the latest video processors. With every successive model revision, more and more TVs, BD players, and set-top boxes will use the newer video processors that support the latest MPEG-4 profile.

With other devices, the 3D feature will get added as a simple update. Millions of PS3s and Directv HD receivers running the latest system software are already enabled for 3D. That's why widespread adoption of 3D is IMO inevitable, and only a matter of time before it becomes just another standard feature.

Where things get interesting will be with the implementation -- passive glasses, active glasses, or no glasses. But, regardless of which of those approaches a TV manufacturer takes, they will all use the same video signal format.

[pixelthis]

The 3D spec is pretty much set, and it builds on the existing MPEG-4 standard. The updated MPEG-4 profile has already made its way into many of the latest video processors. With every successive model revision, more and more TVs, BD players, and set-top boxes will use the newer video processors that support the latest MPEG-4 profile.

With other devices, the 3D feature will get added as a simple update. Millions of PS3s and Directv HD receivers running the latest system software are already enabled for 3D. That's why widespread adoption of 3D is IMO inevitable, and only a matter of time before it becomes just another standard feature.

Where things get interesting will be with the implementation -- passive glasses, active glasses, or no glasses. But, regardless of which of those approaches a TV manufacturer takes, they will all use the same video signal format.

A process that causes headaches after a few hours is a "done deal", eh?

TODAYS "shutter glasses have been supercharged with computer tech, while the ones tried in the eighties were automatic.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, we are a nation of TV addicts, watch TV an average of four hours a day, thats two more than you need to cause a headache with 3D.
Talk about being desperate for sales, never seen an entire industry run like lemmings
off of a cliff.
SAD, REALLY.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A process that causes headaches after a few hours is a "done deal", eh?

It may cause YOU headaches, but apparently not everyone experiences it.


TODAYS "shutter glasses have been supercharged with computer tech, while the ones tried in the eighties were automatic.

The glasses they used in the 80's where simple red/blue glasses which is not even in the same ballpark as shutter based systems.


BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, we are a nation of TV addicts, watch TV an average of four hours a day, thats two more than you need to cause a headache with 3D.
Talk about being desperate for sales, never seen an entire industry run like lemmings
off of a cliff.
SAD, REALLY.:1:

You repeat over and over headaches as if that is a given when watching 3D. It is not, and if it was, they would not sell a single 3D television set. It would be helpful if you posted factual information based on reality, not just your empty uneducated guesses about a technology you know nothing about.

[pixelthis]

It may cause YOU headaches, but apparently not everyone experiences it.

EVERYONE WITH BRAINS...sorry



The glasses they used in the 80's where simple red/blue glasses which is not even in the same ballpark as shutter based systems.


Are you going to force me to look up the several shutter systems , mostly popular in
JAPAN, that circulated during the eighties?
Also polarized glasses were popular(used on CAPT eo at Disney).
BUT LIKE every 3d system ever made, they caused headaches



You repeat over and over headaches as if that is a given when watching 3D. It is not, and if it was, they would not sell a single 3D television set. It would be helpful if you posted factual information based on reality, not just your empty uneducated guesses about a technology you know nothing about.
Lie if you have to, shill, you know good and well that more than a couple of hours watching 3D causes headaches, as does anybody who watches for extended periods.
WATCH your 3d TV for several hours, I DARE YOU.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

EVERYONE WITH BRAINS...sorry

Well, you should not be affected then, you have no brain.



Are you going to force me to look up the several shutter systems , mostly popular in
JAPAN, that circulated during the eighties?
Also polarized glasses were popular(used on CAPT eo at Disney).
BUT LIKE every 3d system ever made, they caused headaches

I hate to bring this to you deadpixel, but Segascope 3D and Famicon 3D were for games, and only 8 games where produced. Neither was that popular in Japan, as there were very few games sold. Neither worked with movies, and neither are worth mentioning in the context of todays 3D.

Secondly, it is not the technology that gives headaches, or everyone who watched 3D would get them. I don't, my kids don't, and apparently neither do millions of other folks. The headaches come from the individuals eyes - which are not able to focus on centrally located images, can't stay in focus with 3D, or have problems with depth perception of 3D images(makes them dizzy). Those of us that do not have those problems(between 88 and 94% of the public) freely enjoy 3D with no issues at all.

Your headache argument has gone from a factual error to just a plain lie. You have stated it enough, and have been rebuffed with the facts. To continue mentioning it is not just a simple lie coming from a known liar.


Lie if you have to, shill, you know good and well that more than a couple of hours watching 3D causes headaches, as does anybody who watches for extended periods.
WATCH your 3d TV for several hours, I DARE YOU.:1:

Your dare has already been taken, and your comments disproven. I watched 6 hours of the world cup with no problems whatsoever. 3D does not cause headaches for everyone, and saying so is just a plain lie liar.

[pixelthis]

THERE was a system from Japan, was around for awhile.
AND if you watched anything nonstop for six hours in 3D your brain(such as it is)
would be fried.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THERE was a system from Japan, was around for awhile.
AND if you watched anything nonstop for six hours in 3D your brain(such as it is)
would be fried.:1:

Digging deep huh Pix. I was going to ask you to explain your assumption that the 3D format itself was the problem, why could 90% of the public view it with no problems? I guess at this point everyone realizes that you would not have an intelligent answer for that.

I already named the two 3D systems in Japan in the 80's, but neither was used for movies.

[Woochifer]

A process that causes headaches after a few hours is a "done deal", eh?

Try reading before you go off on these crazed grammar-impaired rants. You might learn something.


TODAYS "shutter glasses have been supercharged with computer tech, while the ones tried in the eighties were automatic.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, we are a nation of TV addicts, watch TV an average of four hours a day, thats two more than you need to cause a headache with 3D.
Talk about being desperate for sales, never seen an entire industry run like lemmings
off of a cliff.
SAD, REALLY.:1:

Again, this is now an official extension to the MPEG-4 standard. It will be on every new video processing chip.

If you don't like 3D, then switch it off. All of your rantings about it don't matter one bit, because it's going to become a standard feature on new TVs.

[jjp735i]

I have seen 4 movies in 3D and was not impressed with any of them, guess it's just not for me. Maybe if they bring back sensearound +3D lol :arf:

[bobsticks]

I have seen 4 movies in 3D and was not impressed with any of them, guess it's just not for me. Maybe if they bring back sensearound +3D lol :arf:

I'm holding out for Smell-O-Vision.

[bobsticks]

Are you going to force me to look up the several shutter systems , mostly popular in
JAPAN, that circulated during the eighties?
Also polarized glasses were popular(used on CAPT eo at Disney).
BUT LIKE every 3d system ever made, they caused headaches1:

Really? So you're going to make blind assumptions about the products of today based on 30 year old technology from Japan?

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/0la5DBtOVNI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/0la5DBtOVNI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[GMichael]

I'm holding out for Smell-O-Vision.

For all that porn you watch?:yikes:

Oh geesh! I shouldn't have said that. I just know that I'll burn for that one?:blush2:

[bobsticks]

That was unnecessary and you will, indeed, burn green hot for that.


I'd never even considered porn with 3D and Smell-O-Vision...jeez...the room would smell like strawberry stripper lotion and tuna and things would be shootin' at ya from all angles. Too much for the mind to handle...

[GMichael]

That was unnecessary and you will, indeed, burn green hot for that.
Nooooooooooo!!!!!............

Two can play that game. And MY GUN IS BIGGER!



I'd never even considered porn with 3D and Smell-O-Vision...jeez...the room would smell like strawberry stripper lotion and tuna and things would be shootin' at ya from all angles. Too much for the mind to handle...

I tried to leave those details out. Green for your boldness.


Currently the projectors that do 3D well, do a so-so job with 2D, unless you have some very deep pockets. Maybe in the next year or two that will change. We'll see.
My other problem is that the 25' HDMI cable running through my wall & celing is from 2006. I don't know if it will support 3D at all. Running a new cable would be a biotch.

EDIT: Drat drat and DOUBLE DRAT!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bobsticks again.

My gun is jammed.....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Currently the projectors that do 3D well, do a so-so job with 2D, unless you have some very deep pockets. Maybe in the next year or two that will change. We'll see.
My other problem is that the 25' HDMI cable running through my wall & celing is from 2006. I don't know if it will support 3D at all. Running a new cable would be a biotch.

Actually G, the current 3D projectors do VERY well with 2D. JVC has an excellent 2D/3D at around $5000, and so does Sharp. These projectors are not just optimized for 3D, but they are optimized for 2D as well. The same goes for 3D televisions out there. They do a fantastic job with both 2D and 3D.

[GMichael]

Actually G, the current 3D projectors do VERY well with 2D. JVC has an excellent 2D/3D at around $5000, and so does Sharp. These projectors are not just optimized for 3D, but they are optimized for 2D as well. The same goes for 3D televisions out there. They do a fantastic job with both 2D and 3D.
That JVC is a little out of my budget. That tech should trickle down to the 2K models soon though. Maybe this fall when the new models come out. 3D seems like all the rage in the projector forums.
How about my old HDMI cable? Will I need to run a new one?
Will I need a new screen?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That JVC is a little out of my budget. That tech should trickle down to the 2K models soon though. Maybe this fall when the new models come out. 3D seems like all the rage in the projector forums.
How about my old HDMI cable? Will I need to run a new one?
Will I need a new screen?

The reason 3D is the rage in the projector forums, is that the larger the screen, the better the 3D effect. On a 150" screen from the best seat in the house, 3D really "pops". There is an excellent sense of depth, and when images pop out at you, it is very effective. At 50" and below, the effect is more subdued, smaller in scale in the glasses, and does not really pop out at you with great effect.

You will have to change your HDMI cable though unless you have a high speed rated cable capable of 10.2GB throughput.

I don't think you will need a new screen.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=bobsticks]Really? So you're going to make blind assumptions about the products of today based on 30 year old technology from Japan?

YUP!

Because, basically, as far as 3D is concerned, there is nothing new under the sun.
Its all the basic gimmick of forcing the brain to do something unnatural.
THATS because, when you get right down to it, we don't understand anything
much about the human brain, or about the way it integrates two images into a single image with depth of field. We have theories, but thats about it.
THEY found out a few years ago that serotonin affected moods, and along came a bunch
of either serotonin inhibiting or enhancing drugs, basically using a stone axe to carve an
integrated circuit out of a tree. THE guys who shot up Columbine were both on these
drugs for their "disorder". GUESS you could say it cured their "disorder" since they
are both dead(along with a bunch of other people).
THERE IS NOTHING NEW about the basic theory behind current 3D, so why
not believe that it will cause headaches just like all of the other incarnations of this tech?
YOU WANNA be somebodies science project so you can watch a cartoon with a
great depth of field, go ahead.
BUT just remember, if you let your kids watch, you may someday have to answer to them,
and I won't envy you for that.
3D TV, LSD, and other drugs are proof positive that some people are so dumb that, if they can, they will take their brains out and play with them.
Something I LIKE TO THINK OF AS EVOLUTION IN ACTION.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=bobsticks]Really? So you're going to make blind assumptions about the products of today based on 30 year old technology from Japan?

YUP!

Because, basically, as far as 3D is concerned, there is nothing new under the sun.

Your perspective is overly simplistic. There are many things different with todays 3D than that which was done in Japan in the 80's. The current system is for movies, the older system was strictly for games. The old system could only be used with 480i CRT based televisions, and this one can only be used with progressive scan televisions.


Its all the basic gimmick of forcing the brain to do something unnatural.
THATS because, when you get right down to it, we don't understand anything
much about the human brain, or about the way it integrates two images into a single image with depth of field. We have theories, but thats about it.

This is another area you are totally wrong about. Taken from this link

Most people use both eyes to see an object. This is called binocular vision. Through binocular vision, images are formed on the retina of each eye. These images are slightly different, because the object is being viewed from slightly different angles. Nerve signals representing each image are sent to the brain, where they are interpreted as two views of the same object. Some of the nerve fibers from each eye cross, so each side of the brain receives messages from both eyes. Through experience, the brain learns to judge the distance of an object by the degree of difference in the images it receives from the two eyes. This ability to sense distance is called depth perception.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/eyes.html#


THEY found out a few years ago that serotonin affected moods, and along came a bunch
of either serotonin inhibiting or enhancing drugs, basically using a stone axe to carve an
integrated circuit out of a tree. THE guys who shot up Columbine were both on these
drugs for their "disorder". GUESS you could say it cured their "disorder" since they
are both dead(along with a bunch of other people).

A little meandering in your thought process PIx?


THERE IS NOTHING NEW about the basic theory behind current 3D, so why
not believe that it will cause headaches just like all of the other incarnations of this tech?

I have already explained this to you too many times already. The old 3D process (Red/Blue glasses) skewed the color, and has nowhere near the resolution of todays 3D. Old 3D required two projectors - which often got out of sync and caused headaches. The prints that each projector used deteriorated differently which effected images when combined, and that gave headaches. Todays 3D requires just one projector, and one digital file. Old 3D used the Anaglyph method, while todays uses shutter or polarizing method for 3D. The old 3D TECHNOLOGY used to cause headaches. 3D technology today does NOT cause headaches, it is the individual eyes and focus issues that are the problem.

If you go with the simplistic idea that 3D is 3D, and don't dig deeper than that, you are going to come up short on the technical side.




YOU WANNA be somebodies science project so you can watch a cartoon with a
great depth of field, go ahead.
BUT just remember, if you let your kids watch, you may someday have to answer to them,
and I won't envy you for that.

If you let your kids watch too much 2D television, you still are going to have issues like obesity, and lower IQ. Too much of anything is not good for you.


3D TV, LSD, and other drugs are proof positive that some people are so dumb that, if they can, they will take their brains out and play with them.
Something I LIKE TO THINK OF AS EVOLUTION IN ACTION.:1:

This comment is just plain stupid. 3D images are not drugs pix. You don't ingest it, and it does not alter your state of mind.

Do you want to try again???

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

[QUOTE]Your perspective is overly simplistic. There are many things different with todays 3D than that which was done in Japan in the 80's. The current system is for movies, the older system was strictly for games. The old system could only be used with 480i CRT based televisions, and this one can only be used with progressive scan televisions.


THE OLDER system was used for movies and video.


This is another area you are totally wrong about. Taken from this link


Most people use both eyes to see an object. This is called binocular vision. Through binocular vision, images are formed on the retina of each eye. These images are slightly different, because the object is being viewed from slightly different angles. Nerve signals representing each image are sent to the brain, where they are interpreted as two views of the same object. Some of the nerve fibers from each eye cross, so each side of the brain receives messages from both eyes. Through experience, the brain learns to judge the distance of an object by the degree of difference in the images it receives from the two eyes. This ability to sense distance is called depth perception.


AND this is like saying that a bird flies by flapping its wings
TRUTH is, we do have a crude idea of how binocular vision works, but every time we try to
replicate it, it results in headaches.
WE do best with things like the old viewmaster, etc. BUT the dynamic process of
integrating two images into what we see is so complicated we may never get it right, except to create a hologram type image and let the brain do what we cant understand.





A little meandering in your thought process PIx?

JUST stating the law of unintended consequences.
A FRIENDS son has been taking RITALIN since a child for his "a-d-d.
THAT son is now a twenty five year old crack head, with severe maladjustment
(he steals what isn't locked down, including thousands from his parents).
But his "A-D-D" is still there, and he loves the floor stripper.


I have already explained this to you too many times already. The old 3D process (Red/Blue glasses) skewed the color, and has nowhere near the resolution of todays 3D. Old 3D required two projectors - which often got out of sync and caused headaches. The prints that each projector used deteriorated differently which effected images when combined, and that gave headaches. Todays 3D requires just one projector, and one digital file. Old 3D used the Anaglyph method, while todays uses shutter or polarizing method for 3D. The old 3D TECHNOLOGY used to cause headaches. 3D technology today does NOT cause headaches, it is the individual eyes and focus issues that are the problem.


I AM NOT talking about the old blue-red glasses, or even the polarized glasses,
or the "active shutter" glasses, I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL of them.
DOESN'T matter a whit how a car is powered, diesel, gas, pulled by virgins, a hamster
wheel, if the wheels are square


If you go with the simplistic idea that 3D is 3D, and don't dig deeper than that, you are going to come up short on the technical side.

And I will be fine.
BETTER to "come up short" on the "technical" side and miss out on purple monsters
and green trolls looking slightly more real, than undergoing therapy to try and
retrain my optical center to see straight.
YOU ENJOY your 3D, I will enjoy my eyesight.




If you let your kids watch too much 2D television, you still are going to have issues like obesity, and lower IQ. Too much of anything is not good for you.

NOT REALLY.
Can't get enough bacon


This comment is just plain stupid. 3D images are not drugs pix. You don't ingest it, and it does not alter your state of mind.


This is about the dumbest thing you have ever said, and thats saying a lot.
We humans are mostly sight oriented creatures, its our major sense.
DURING BRAINWASHING plain old two D images are often used, drugs are added just
as a helper.
HATE TO SEE what a 3D image could do to a human brain(or yours).
VISUAL IMAGERY does more to "alter" ones mind than any other thing.


Do you want to try again???

Kind of ironic you should say that, because thats what the doc is going to say to you
as you try the simplest exercises to relearn the simplest tasks.:1:

[E-Stat]

Can't get enough bacon
He's baaaaaaaccccckkkk from the perils!

rw

[harley .guy07]

My opinion for what it is is that until the goofy glasses go away I am not interested. If I want to wear glasses besides sun glasses I will get them from my eye doctor. I don't want a situation to exist where everyone in my home has to wear weird looking glasses just to watch tv or a movie. When they perfect 3d to where no glasses are involved then I will start to take interest.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THE OLDER system was used for movies and video.

Sorry, but 3D in Japan in the 80's WAS NOT used for movies - it was for games only(Sega). Do you have a link that tells what Japanese movies 3D was used on?


AND this is like saying that a bird flies by flapping its wings
TRUTH is, we do have a crude idea of how binocular vision works, but every time we try to
replicate it, it results in headaches.
WE do best with things like the old viewmaster, etc. BUT the dynamic process of
integrating two images into what we see is so complicated we may never get it right, except to create a hologram type image and let the brain do what we cant understand.

Pix, your lack of knowledge is staggering. We already can replicate binocular vision with....binoculars! They are used everywhere, with no headaches. The military uses them, bird watchers use them, and kids use them.



JUST stating the law of unintended consequences.
A FRIENDS son has been taking RITALIN since a child for his "a-d-d.
THAT son is now a twenty five year old crack head, with severe maladjustment
(he steals what isn't locked down, including thousands from his parents).
But his "A-D-D" is still there, and he loves the floor stripper.

Okay.....


I AM NOT talking about the old blue-red glasses, or even the polarized glasses,
or the "active shutter" glasses, I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL of them.
DOESN'T matter a whit how a car is powered, diesel, gas, pulled by virgins, a hamster
wheel, if the wheels are square

Well Pix, not all 3D is alike. Each format will produce a slightly different result, just like a gas powered car will perform differently than a diesel powered car. Your glossing over fine detail shows that you do not have a firm grasp on the issue at hand - just like most issues you attempt to discuss.


And I will be fine.
BETTER to "come up short" on the "technical" side and miss out on purple monsters
and green trolls looking slightly more real, than undergoing therapy to try and
retrain my optical center to see straight.
YOU ENJOY your 3D, I will enjoy my eyesight.

I can enjoy 3D WITH my eyesight thanks. Not sure you can enjoy 3D any other way. Personally I think your position on 3D is based on the fact that you cannot afford 3D. You have a habit of demeaning things that are out of your "budget". Like a performance oriented audio and video system, as opposed to the more budget minded lower performing components you embrace.



NOT REALLY.
Can't get enough bacon

Nice deflection



This is about the dumbest thing you have ever said, and thats saying a lot.
We humans are mostly sight oriented creatures, its our major sense.
DURING BRAINWASHING plain old two D images are often used, drugs are added just
as a helper.
HATE TO SEE what a 3D image could do to a human brain(or yours).
VISUAL IMAGERY does more to "alter" ones mind than any other thing.

Riiiight. I am high as hell after viewing a 3D movie LOLOLOLOL buffoon.(turns sarcasm button off). I love going to a 3D movie at the theater and enjoying a mass high from the experience.




Kind of ironic you should say that, because thats what the doc is going to say to you
as you try the simplest exercises to relearn the simplest tasks.:1:

Yeah, like when you try and use what tiny brain you have left.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Pix, your lack of knowledge is staggering. We already can replicate binocular vision with....binoculars! They are used everywhere, with no headaches. The military uses them, bird watchers use them, and kids use them.


THEY MERELY AMPLIFY whats already there.
Sheeeese

Okay.....




Well Pix, not all 3D is alike. Each format will produce a slightly different result, just like a gas powered car will perform differently than a diesel powered car. Your glossing over fine detail shows that you do not have a firm grasp on the issue at hand - just like most issues you attempt to discuss.

THEY ALL PRODUCE the same "result", much like the "results" from different guns
are the same


I can enjoy 3D WITH my eyesight thanks. Not sure you can enjoy 3D any other way. Personally I think your position on 3D is based on the fact that you cannot afford 3D. You have a habit of demeaning things that are out of your "budget". Like a performance oriented audio and video system, as opposed to the more budget minded lower performing components you embrace.


AH, THE OLD "poorass" argument.
Well, I do have better things to do with three grand than to destroy my brain.
YOU SEE, unlike you, I STILL USE MINE...


Nice deflection





Riiiight. I am high as hell after viewing a 3D movie LOLOLOLOL buffoon.(turns sarcasm button off). I love going to a 3D movie at the theater and enjoying a mass high from the experience.


enjoy trying to drive after your brain can't resolve a normal 3d image anymore



Yeah, like when you try and use what tiny brain you have left.
AT LEAST I will have some left.:1:

[GMichael]

The reason 3D is the rage in the projector forums, is that the larger the screen, the better the 3D effect. On a 150" screen from the best seat in the house, 3D really "pops". There is an excellent sense of depth, and when images pop out at you, it is very effective. At 50" and below, the effect is more subdued, smaller in scale in the glasses, and does not really pop out at you with great effect.

You will have to change your HDMI cable though unless you have a high speed rated cable capable of 10.2GB throughput.

I don't think you will need a new screen.
The cable was top of the line back in 2006. Not so much anymore. Not sure of the speed rating. Running a new one will be tough. I should have put in a conduit for future cables, but it's too late for that now. Maybe I can get to it from the attic.:idea:

[bobsticks]

He's baaaaaaaccccckkkk from the perils!

rw

Yes...

...amidst the fallacies, incongruous examples, innacuracies, and liberty with the English language one comforting thing is clear. Pix has survived one tumult and has returned to create more.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE]

THEY MERELY AMPLIFY whats already there.
Sheeeese


But you said it gave people headaches, are you now walking back that statement?.




THEY ALL PRODUCE the same "result", much like the "results" from different guns
are the same

No they do not produce the same result. IMAX 3D produces a slightly different 3D than Real3D. Dolby 3D produces a slightly different 3D than Sony Real3D XLS. Some formats require a silver screen, others do not. This also imparts subtle viewing differences for 3D.

All guns do not produce the same effect. Some guns can blow a hole through you, and others less so.




AH, THE OLD "poorass" argument.
Well, I do have better things to do with three grand than to destroy my brain.
YOU SEE, unlike you, I STILL USE MINE..

When? You sure haven't used it on this board.




enjoy trying to drive after your brain can't resolve a normal 3d image anymore

I have been enjoying 3D since the early 90's. No problems so far. I have a 3D projector or television in all of my hometheaters.....no problems so far. I have viewed well past 125 3D movies, and no problems. I drive everyday, even after viewing a 3D movie - no problems.

I think your assumptions(because that is all it is) are inaccurately overblown.




AT LEAST I will have some left.:1:

I guess a single brain cell can be called some.

[pixelthis]

But you said it gave people headaches, are you now walking back that statement?.

nope.
3D does give headaches, which has nothing to do with binoculars, as you well
know, stop trying to transpose the two, they have nothing to do with each other.
I WEAR EYEGLASSES, next thing you know, you'll be calling those 3D!



[QUOTE]No they do not produce the same result. IMAX 3D produces a slightly different 3D than Real3D. Dolby 3D produces a slightly different 3D than Sony Real3D XLS. Some formats require a silver screen, others do not. This also imparts subtle viewing differences for 3D.


Just slight variations of the same thing, and all cause headaches


All guns do not produce the same effect. Some guns can blow a hole through you, and others less so.

I KNOW quite a bit more about guns than you do, unless you practiced once a month,
qualified once a year, and carried one every day for fifteen years.
And trust me, when one puts a hole through you, you won't care how big the hole
or which gun did it



When? You sure haven't used it on this board.
JUST because you lack basic comprehension skills is no reflection on the one wasting
his time trying to teach you something





I have been enjoying 3D since the early 90's. No problems so far. I have a 3D projector or television in all of my hometheaters.....no problems so far. I have viewed well past 125 3D movies, and no problems. I drive everyday, even after viewing a 3D movie - no problems.


This explains a lot


I think your assumptions(because that is all it is) are inaccurately overblown.


I THINK YOU'RE headed for a fall



I guess a single brain cell can be called some.


Proud of that lonely little sucker, hun?:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Proud of that lonely little sucker, hun?:1:

Pix, your bankrupt on this. You are resorting to stupid comments instead of addressing the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Move on, you don't have a damn thing to add to this.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

Pix, your bankrupt on this. You are resorting to stupid comments instead of addressing the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Move on, you don't have a damn thing to add to this.

say hi to your optometrist for me.:1: